Nzuza defence disputes Hawks’ account of cellphone seizure in R320m Durban Solid Waste trial

The Durban High Court is hearing a defence challenge to the Hawks’ account of how former eThekwini municipal manager Sipho Nzuza’s cellphone was seized in the R320 million Durban Solid Waste tender fraud case. The dispute is being considered in a trial-within-a-trial that will decide whether material extracted from the phone can be admitted as evidence.

What the defence says

The defence argued that the cellphone was taken without a warrant and was presented as being seized for safekeeping. Nzuza’s lawyer, whose identity is protected by a court order, told the court she was not informed at the police station that the device had been taken and only learned about it later while at the Durban Magistrates’ Court.

“The Hawks officer only told me of the phone being taken when we were in court after discussions with the prosecutor regarding bail conditions,”

The attorney said she relied on contemporaneous notes from the day of Nzuza’s arrest and rejected a Hawks officer’s affidavit claim that she had been told immediately after the seizure. She told the court: “That is wholly incorrect.”

Why the issue matters

The main trial has been temporarily paused while the court determines the admissibility of the cellphone evidence. The State alleges that procurement processes were manipulated to ensure contracts were awarded to four companies and that the accused siphoned R320 million from the municipality through the Durban Solid Waste tender between 2016 and 2017.

Who is implicated

Nzuza is one of 21 accused in the matter, which includes former eThekwini mayor Zandile Gumede and the four companies implicated in the tender awards.

Courtroom details

The defence referred the court to the transcript of Nzuza’s bail proceedings, saying the magistrate had described the alleged seizure as a serious matter after the defence raised concerns that the cellphone had been unlawfully taken.

The attorney said the defence could have sought a High Court order to prevent police from downloading information from the phone but did not do so because senior State advocate Ashika Lucken had indicated the cellphone would be returned that afternoon. The attorney questioned why the investigating officer had not told Lucken that the cellphone had allegedly been seized in her presence.

Next steps

The trial-within-a-trial will decide whether the evidence extracted from the cellphone is admissible. The outcome will determine whether the main trial resumes with that material or proceeds without it.